5 ms·

Assange is incoherent. Why would Sweden frame him for a rape that he didn't commit? Why would the USA need to get him extradited through Sweden if the UK can ex

by zirgs 3y ago

Assange is incoherent. Why would Sweden frame him for a rape that he didn't commit? Why would the USA need to get him extradited through Sweden if the UK can extradite him to the USA directly without any sort of fake criminal charges? Also why the hell did he go to the Ecuadorian embassy without an exit plan? He has spent more than 10 years in prison and self-imprisonment. And for what? That helicopter combat footage? Is that it? Sure - it doesn't look good, but...that's Tuesday for the Russians in Ukraine.

cbsmith 3y ago
> Assange is incoherent. Why would Sweden frame him for a rape that he didn't commit? He wasn't incoherent when the charges were filed.
atlantic 3y ago
At the time, the UK couldn't just arrest him at the behest of the US, for exposing state crimes such as torture and extra-judicial killing. He was a popular and respected figure, so public opinion wouldn't allow it. The rape charges served to smear his reputation and erode public support. Now they can do what they want with him.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
>Why would the USA need to get him extradited through Sweden if the UK can extradite him to the USA directly without any sort of fake criminal charges? Currently the extradition of Assange has been refused on humanitarian grounds, as the US can't guarantee that they won't stick him in an ultramax facility and/or drive him to suicide. It's still facing appeal, but it's entirely possible the UK refuses to extradite. I believe historically Sweden has been more willing to ignore such concerns when dealing with the US, which is why there would have been an incentive to fake charges that could get him moved to Swedish custody.
- toyg 3y ago
  > It's still facing appeal, but it's entirely possible the UK refuses to extradite. Extradition has actually been approved by all relevant UK authorities, after formal reassurance from the US about his treatment. Assange is appealing that decision, arguing then-Home Secretary Priti Patel was an id-- could not seriously accept some meaningless words that they can renege a minute after getting him. Meanwhile, the Australian government is trying to vaguely save face by making some noise, probably to extract some extra money from Biden to just shut up.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    The US has even said if convicted he can serve in Australia. Australia could probably release or pardon him if they wanted to. I don't understand why people are so against him seeing a court room.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      The US government also said that there were WMDs in Iraq. I don't understand why anyone would believe anything they say in a case like that of Assange, where the "national interest" concerns override any other consideration.
    - dijit 3y ago
      it's a little more nuanced than that, but for starters Assange already held the right to apply to serve any sentence in Australia. What is crucial to understand is that prisoner transfers (IE; to Australia in this case) are eligible only after all appeals have been exhausted. For the case to reach the US supreme court it could easily take a decade, even two. What the US has proposed is a formula to keep Assange in prison effectively for the rest of his life, and in a US prison.
      - zirgs 3y ago
        Ross Ulbricht - the infamous Silk Road guy: 1. Arrested in 2013. 2. Sentenced in 2015. 3. First unsuccessful appeal in 2017. 4. The case reached the Supreme Court and was denied in 2018. So - 5 years. Fewer than Assange spent in the embassy.
        toyg 3y ago
        Nowhere near the level of complexity and political visibility as Assange's.
        formerly_proven 3y ago
        I don't actually understand why people who were convicted on overwhelming preponderance of evidence so often waste everyone's time with appeals.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> if the UK can extradite him to the USA directly without any sort of fake criminal charges? My understanding is that Assange: 1) Isn't a US citizen 2) Had never set foot within the United States 3) Committed no acts that could be construed (even to idiots) as violating US law It makes it a little difficult to genuinely extradite. More than likely there was a plan to use extraordinary rendition once he was off UK soil, but before he had arrived in Sweden.
- nullfield 3y ago
  The problem, loosely, is that the US claims that the rules don’t apply to it. Not a citizen of the US? No problem-actually, all the better since it doesn’t have to follow “…”. The US pretends that its law extends and applies everywhere when it says so, damn the rules or consequences.

by zirgs 3y ago

cbsmith 3y ago

> Assange is incoherent. Why would Sweden frame him for a rape that he didn't commit? He wasn't incoherent when the charges were filed.

atlantic 3y ago

At the time, the UK couldn't just arrest him at the behest of the US, for exposing state crimes such as torture and extra-judicial killing. He was a popular and respected figure, so public opinion wouldn't allow it. The rape charges served to smear his reputation and erode public support. Now they can do what they want with him.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

>Why would the USA need to get him extradited through Sweden if the UK can extradite him to the USA directly without any sort of fake criminal charges? Currently the extradition of Assange has been refused on humanitarian grounds, as the US can't guarantee that they won't stick him in an ultramax facility and/or drive him to suicide. It's still facing appeal, but it's entirely possible the UK refuses to extradite. I believe historically Sweden has been more willing to ignore such concerns when dealing with the US, which is why there would have been an incentive to fake charges that could get him moved to Swedish custody.

toyg 3y ago
> It's still facing appeal, but it's entirely possible the UK refuses to extradite. Extradition has actually been approved by all relevant UK authorities, after formal reassurance from the US about his treatment. Assange is appealing that decision, arguing then-Home Secretary Priti Patel was an id-- could not seriously accept some meaningless words that they can renege a minute after getting him. Meanwhile, the Australian government is trying to vaguely save face by making some noise, probably to extract some extra money from Biden to just shut up.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  The US has even said if convicted he can serve in Australia. Australia could probably release or pardon him if they wanted to. I don't understand why people are so against him seeing a court room.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    The US government also said that there were WMDs in Iraq. I don't understand why anyone would believe anything they say in a case like that of Assange, where the "national interest" concerns override any other consideration.
  - dijit 3y ago
    it's a little more nuanced than that, but for starters Assange already held the right to apply to serve any sentence in Australia. What is crucial to understand is that prisoner transfers (IE; to Australia in this case) are eligible only after all appeals have been exhausted. For the case to reach the US supreme court it could easily take a decade, even two. What the US has proposed is a formula to keep Assange in prison effectively for the rest of his life, and in a US prison.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      Ross Ulbricht - the infamous Silk Road guy: 1. Arrested in 2013. 2. Sentenced in 2015. 3. First unsuccessful appeal in 2017. 4. The case reached the Supreme Court and was denied in 2018. So - 5 years. Fewer than Assange spent in the embassy.
      - toyg 3y ago
        Nowhere near the level of complexity and political visibility as Assange's.
      - formerly_proven 3y ago
        I don't actually understand why people who were convicted on overwhelming preponderance of evidence so often waste everyone's time with appeals.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> if the UK can extradite him to the USA directly without any sort of fake criminal charges? My understanding is that Assange: 1) Isn't a US citizen 2) Had never set foot within the United States 3) Committed no acts that could be construed (even to idiots) as violating US law It makes it a little difficult to genuinely extradite. More than likely there was a plan to use extraordinary rendition once he was off UK soil, but before he had arrived in Sweden.

nullfield 3y ago
The problem, loosely, is that the US claims that the rules don’t apply to it. Not a citizen of the US? No problem-actually, all the better since it doesn’t have to follow “…”. The US pretends that its law extends and applies everywhere when it says so, damn the rules or consequences.